10/26/2006

More than one hundred of the nation's mayors are breathing new life into the gun control movement.The "Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition," a bipartisan group of 109 mayors in 44 states, is meeting Thursday in Chicago to "share strategies in the fight against illegal guns."

According to the coalition's website, those strategies include "how to work with local law enforcement agencies and state representatives to maximize penalties for those who possess, use and traffic in illegal guns." The discussion also will focus on information sharing and "best practices on enforcement and legislative issues."

If you really wanted to support the fight against illegal guns, your party would support police rather than cut their funding. How many illegal guns have legal gun owners taken "off the streets" from criminals?Answer: Zero!!!!

Kalvyn needs to refocus on the real reason for guns. Kalvyn, get yourself a 12 gauge over/under and go grouse or pheasant hunting. No need to conceal it when you are carrying it through the woods or the corn hunting upland game. That's what guns are all about, Charlie Brown.

I think it's interesting that kalvyn clean is opposed to fighting against illegal guns -- unless he gets the right to carry his legal gun. No one is trying to take away his legal gun or calling it into question. So, unless KC gets to CARRY his gun, he's apparently opposed to reducing the amount of illegal guns being carried.

I guess it has nothing to do with law and order and safety of the streets and got everything to do with personal egos...

You've got it there Anon. I've heard/read absolutely no indication from any supporter of carry conceal, ANY support for law enforcement. In fact what I've heard, and read enough of, is obstruction and criticism of enforcement efforts consistently. Take some of the local vocal crowd, what have they done (murder investigations, sexual abuse investigations, threat investigations????).I am a hunter, and support the right to own firearms. 666 I have no argument with you on your idea, personally I wouldn't, but that's my choice. If a person has a lagitimate reason to get a permit to carry a firearm, they can do that now, so what is the big deal?

The real problem in this debate is the role of the NRA. Hunters give loads of money to the NRA, and the NRA pays them lip service while spending all the money lobbying for conceal-and-carry on the city streets. The NRA knows that hunting is a dying sport and that fearful Dirty Harry's are their future. If the NRA spent its cash on preserving wetlands, forests, and other public hunting land from the encroachment of developers and energy companies, and less on promoting concealed handguns and automatic weapons, this country could get back on track.

I believe you NRA observations are correct. I often look at the NRA publications I find laying around and try to follow their issues. Fewer people are hunting, because people are leaving the rural life and moving to the suburban areas. Not only do they lose touch with their rural traditions like hunting, they also lose contacts with the hunting land they used to hunt on. Likewise, farms are being sold off and there goes more hunting land.

The DNR wants Wisconsin hunters to go out and drastically thin out the deer heard to reduce the spread of CWD, but the hunters aren't taking them up on it. Hunting groups are begging hunters to get out and cut down the population.

Contrary to what you suggest, the second amendment is not the “freedom to hunt” clause of the constitution. Extensive legal and historical scholarship has established that the right to keep and bear arms is both a collective and an individual civil right, protecting and enabling activities such as self-defense, national defense, and the means by which to resist tyrannical government power. So while hunting is certainly one of the activities protected by the right to keep and bear arms, it certainly is not the only one.

38 states have enacted shall-issue concealed carry laws in the USA. Less than ½ of 1 percent of all registered concealed carry permit holders have been involved in an incident of any kind, and only a fraction of those been charged or convicted of a gun crime. Meanwhile, these same states have seen reductions in violent crime from 3 to 8 percent. Perhaps most significantly, dire predictions of public shootouts and vigilante killings have never materialized, which seems to underscore the idea that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem, and should not have their constitutional rights infringed in a quixotic quest to rid the nation of gun crime.

roadkill; you forgot about the demographic reason for the downturn in in violent crime (an aging population). How you twist the facts. If you actually think that carry conceal is the cause for the reduction in violent crime, you're deceiving yourself.There is no substantiation for your claim.

The association between concealed carry laws and crime reduction has been well documented in numerous peer -reviewed studies, the most notable being John Lott’s 1997 study entitled “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” Dr Lott (a professor of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School) based his analysis on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994. He found that concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

There is ample substantiation for my assertions regarding both the second amendment and the benefits of concealed carry laws. I am not twisting facts but merely presenting them. If you have other facts on subject I would be pleased to consider them.

Yes; consistent Department of Justice reports implying the aging of society, and reduced violence (crime prevention, and education also have an impact) is a predominent parallel to any decline in violent crime. However any time any data is used to corollate a caues for a trend, it minimumly needs to be five or more years to even attempt to make an even close to valid assessment. Tracking crime from year to year can be extremely skewed. Additionally, many domestic abuse laws post 1977, and have been enhanced since 1998. Those laws have had a dramatic impact on violent crime. They have both been a deterrent, and have opened the door for intervention, which ultimately reduces repeat offenses. Domestic abuse laws not only impact spousal relationships, but any environment where people at any time have resided together (i.e. roomates siblings).There has not been an unbiased study done, that attempts to identify in a true format, criminal action in comparison to carry conceal. Again the far majority if violent incidences are acquaintance related (i.e. domestic disputes, gang violenc, sexual abuse) However one peace of data that is not recorded is class II crimes. Class II crimes and Class I property crimes continue to rise,and are the predominant crimes in this country. Class I Property crimes are : Burglary, Larceny/theft, Arson. Class II crimes in a braod sence are non violent, or less violent (even though some are very serious crimes). Examples are forgery, counterfeit, fraud, ID theft, credit card, and computer crimes, weapon laws, indecent exposure or conduct, drug laws, disorderly conduct (not to the degree of battery), resisting or obstructing, gambeling ect.....Most crime has a chericter of its own, and is not black and white. Everyone toting a gun is not going to stop crime. You can say all you want, that is a fact. There are methods that actually do help reduce crime as a whole. Crime prevention by environmental design, reporting crimes, not obstructing police in their investigations, being a good witness, good camera system in businesses, neighborhood watch, and business watch programs.Ultimately crime prevention is not about carrying or not carrying a gun, it's about people helping each other, being good neighbors, and support of sources in place that deal with crime.I own my own guns, and I can use them quite well, but I don't see a realistic need for carrying one.